jayjg wrote:
Look, you didn't step in when the rhetoric
and insults started flying,
so I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously when you suddenly
want me to stop *my* responses. Deal with Joe and Sheldon, then come
to me when you've calmed them down.
Well, I started with you because that's who I was trying to talk to
about a potential policy. Had I been discussing things with them and
noticed similar issues, I'm sure I would have spoken up. I often do.
However, I confess to having skimmed more of their stuff, because I
already understand their position. It's the other position, the
not-BADSITES-but-superficially-similar position that I'm trying to get a
handle on.
Further, I believe they're in this because they seriously believe that
their position is important to Wikipedia's future, and are spending time
on this because the outcome matters to them.
Joe was a multiple sockpuppeteer who was indefinitely banned long ago
by the Arbcom for linking to attack sites. I happened to be one of the
Arbcom members involved in that decision. I'm sure his current level
of vitriol has nothing whatsoever to do with those facts, and
everything to do with his love for Wikipedia.
As for Sheldon? I would imagine his interests lie with SourceWatch.